alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 s0crates, Can you please clearly state on what basis you dismiss materialism as fundamentally unable to offer an explanation for consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Peter, Yes. I think the latest physics (based on my limited understanding) is coherent with what I'm trying to say. There's something the matter with the matter. Thinking of reality as "stuff" won't work. Easy examples: What is energy? What is force? Surely they don't have mass, do they? So reality can't be only things with mass, unless we want to say energy and force aren't real. Harder example: Matter, like light, behaves as both wave and particle. See the infamous double slit experiments. Thinking of matter in Cartesian terms doesn't account for the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 s0crates, Can you please clearly state on what basis you dismiss materialism as fundamentally unable to offer an explanation for consciousness? If I may answer a question with a question, how do you define matter?Can you define matter without reference to a perception or idea? That is, can you give an account of "matter" devoid of experience? Take any "material" object for example. Tell me what it is in terms that involve no reference to any conscious experience, no abstract idea, no perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Gods,angels, demons, devils, spirits, aliens, and whatever else has intelligence, all share the same basic principle, and that is human nature. This does not mean the are not more or less powerful in this way or that. Ultimately this is why the best example for god is Pi. Pi is a number this is a microcosm for what god is, something that can be understood in part but never in entirety. God cant build a perfect circle anybetter then we can. Just like we cant build a perfect world and neither can he or she, whatever. This is why he is smart enough to set the pieces in motion to the best of his ability and understand that not even he has the power to know exactly how it should end up. Thats the beauty of life, and the fallacy in our attempt to fully understand it or control it. which does not mean we should not try, but we should always be weary and humble in the knowledge of our limitations. Just this small acknowledgement changes drastically the current philosophies that drive much of the negativity in this world. FInd god, explore god, love god. Just dont pidgeonhole him or his will in all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 s0crates, Can you please clearly state on what basis you dismiss materialism as fundamentally unable to offer an explanation for consciousness? If you sincerely don't understand the force of my question, please watch this: I think that is "clearly stated." Especially the part at the end about "what's at stake." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 If you sincerely don't understand the force of my question, please watch this: ... I think that is "clearly stated." Experiencing color is a kind of knowledge of color. Mary cannot know "everything there is to know about color" if she never experienced color. .. I said any theory that denies consciousness must be wrong. ... Can you please expand on this statement, specifically how can we distinguish between theories that "deny consciousness" and theories that do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Can you please expand on this statement, specifically how can we distinguish between theories that "deny consciousness" and theories that do not.Any theory that says reality is entirely what Descartes called "material substance" denies consciousness. To be clear: any theory that says reality is entirely mindless, purposeless, physical objects, operating according to mechanical laws. Or to put it as Carroll does, reality is "just atoms operating according to physical laws." That's a preposterous claim on it's face. Each of us immediately refutes it by the irreducible fact of our own existence. I find it hard to see how anybody could take this seriously. Now, I ask you: Why should science be saddled with this Cartesian baggage? Why force yourself to define matter the way he did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 ... Especially the part at the end about "what's at stake." Reality is what it is. Great things are at stake indeed - rethinking ourselves and our role in the universe. Sean Carroll talks about this around the 8th minute (good news and bad news) Any theory that says reality is entirely what Descartes called "material substance" denies consciousness. To be clear: any theory that says reality is entirely mindless, purposeless, physical objects, operating according to mechanical laws. Or to put it as Carroll does, reality is "just atoms operating according to physical laws." That's a preposterous claim on it's face. Each of us immediately refutes it by the irreducible fact of our own existence. I find it hard to see how anybody could take this seriously. Refusing a scientific theory because it feels preposterous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Why force yourself to define matter the way Descartes did? Why embrace the absurd implication? I contend we might be better off thinking in terms of events, processes, and happenings, than we are thinking in terms of blind stuff. Do you think it's possible we could explain more that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Why force yourself to define matter the way Descartes did? Why embrace the absurd implication? Do you think it is possible we might be better off thinking in terms of events, processes, and happenings, than we are thinking in terms of inert stuff? That maybe we could explain more that way? Per Wikipedia Descartes was born on 31 March 1596 and died on 11 February 1650. Here is the Wikipedia article on matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter I only see Descartes' name in the "Historical development" section. What is your relationship with the modern naturalistic thought regarding consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Alexey- You're nitpicking. I have a reasonable general point here and you haven't really acknowledged it. I grant we have a more sophisticated notion of matter now than Descartes did, but you must see the remnants of Cartesian thinking. For Descartes "matter" was blind and purposeless, and the science-implies-atheism folks treat it exactly that way. To say that reality is composed entirely of matter so defined is obviously false. I know reality cannot be entirely blind and purposeless because I know I am not blind and purposeless, and I am real. Would you deny it? (It seems Carroll concedes the point, but does not realize that it contradicts his metaphysics). Of course physicists know that's far too simplistic a picture of reality. Again getting to my point about what pretentious fools these guys like Dawkins are; to act as though they are omniscient . . . so little appreciation of the mystery, so much proselytizing. "Science has discovered there is no God!" The arrogance! It defies the very spirit of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Reality is what it is. Great things are at stake indeed - rethinking ourselves and our role in the universe. Sean Carroll talks about this around the 8th minute (good news and bad news) Let me show you what I mean by responding to this directly. Notice he says two things: 1. The universe is made entirely of particles that don't have intelligence, meaning, creativity, or purpose. 2. But you do! Is that not a manifest contradiction? Or do you contend I am not part of the universe? Refusing a scientific theory because it feels preposterous? Not exactly, more like refusing a theory that cannot explain the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Let me show you what I mean by responding to this directly. Notice he says two things: 1. The universe is made entirely of particles that don't have intelligence, meaning,and purpose. 2. But you do! Is that not a manifest contradiction? Or do you contend I am not part of the universe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties." Not exactly, more like refusing a theory that cannot explain the data.I am hearing you say that a whole class of theories (naturalism) cannot possibly account for consciousness. Is this not what you are saying? Alexey- You're nitpicking. I have a reasonable general point here and you haven't really acknowledged it. I grant we have a more sophisticated notion of matter now than Descartes did, but you must see the remnants of Cartesian thinking. For Descartes "matter" was blind and purposeless, and the science-implies-atheism folks treat it exactly that way. To say that reality is composed entirely of matter so defined is obviously false. Saying that you are made up of atoms is not the same as saying that atoms are all there is to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties." Two things:1. You left out the key point: "In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels." 2. Once we bring up emergence, we find ourselves in territory consistent with teleological thinking, which the people I'm protesting are so insistent on repudiating, in my judgment much too hastily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Two things: 1. You left out the key point: "In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels." 2. Once we bring up emergence, we find ourselves in territory consistent with teleological thinking, which the people I'm protesting are so insistent on repudiating, in my judgment much too hastily. How do you get from emergence to teleological thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 How do you get from emergence to teleological thinking? How do you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 How do you not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology "A teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose. For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 So has this been answered yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I am hearing you say that a whole class of theories (naturalism) cannot possibly account for consciousness. Is this not what you are saying? No. I think the word "naturalism" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I'm contending that scientific materialism, or the view that reality is composed entirely of blind, purposeless, matter, operating according to mechanical laws, is false. It is false because there are aspects of reality that are not blind, and do have purpose. Frankly I consider the mention of "emergence" here a concession. At least it shows an awareness of something that demands explanation. So has this been answered yet? Some people just don't know how to have a good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 No. I think the word "naturalism" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I'm contending that scientific materialism, or the view that reality is composed entirely of blind, purposeless, matter, operating according to mechanical laws, is false. It is false because there are aspects of reality that are not blind, and do have purpose. Frankly I consider the mention of "emergence" here a concession. At least it shows an awareness of something that demands explanation. In naturalism, purpose is an emergent property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Dharma And Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 In naturalism, purpose is an emergent property.I just want to get this on the record. Think of what this premise might imply . . .Is there an obvious inference to atheism from here? And I'm not saying it implies theism. I'm only saying people shouldn't be so sure. This "science discovers there is no God" stuff is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 So has this been answered yet? **** no. It's a circle jerk around something that we don't know actually exists and means something completely different for anyone who ventured to answer the question. God is what you make of it. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I just want to get this on the record. Think of what this premise might imply . . . Is there an obvious inference to atheism from here? And I'm not saying it implies theism. I'm only saying people shouldn't be so sure. Naturalism is atheism. Naturalism is a system. Being sure is a personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Naturalism is atheism. Perhaps you've not heard of natural theology? I tried to tell you the word "nature" has no clear meaning. Naturalism is a system.Agreed. Being sure is a personal choice. I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.